> There is no other conceivable reason why someone would not want people to have at least the option of taking custody over their own money You're attacking a

> There is no other conceivable reason why someone would not want people to have at least the option of taking custody over their own money You're attacking a straw man here. The author doesn't argue for eliminating the blockchain or crypto assets. His thesis is that blockchain hasn't gained significant traction (for anything other than speculation, especially as people panic about USD inflation) because people don't want to decentralize trust. They inherently like institutions and want institutions they can trust. > in a form more useful than physical cash Literally the whole point of the article is to argue that Bitcoin (and other crypto "currency") is less useful than cash and less appealing to consumers. He is also arguing that this is inherent to the technology itself and will never change. Nothing is ever going to replace fiat if it's deflationary, and no one is going to "invest" (i.e. buy and keep) a digital fiat replacement unless it's deflationary. It's a catch-22 that digital assets can't solve.